beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 73,477,580 as well as 5% per annum from June 21, 2012 to October 5, 2012 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From June 2009, the Plaintiff, as a person who distributes the “former Sea Connmark” product used in the electronic device, supplied the product to the Defendant with the previous sea contact Denmark, which was manufactured by the non-party Young Electronic Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Cho Electronic”).
B. From January 2012 to April 2012, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a total of KRW 73,477,580 in Jeon Sea Connmark, but the Defendant did not pay that amount to the Plaintiff.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 73,477,580 payable to the Plaintiff and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 21, 2012 to October 5, 2012, which is the delivery date of the instant complaint, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.
B. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment (i.e., the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant cannot pay the Plaintiff the price for the goods supplied during the pertinent period, on the ground that there was a defect in which the name of Jeon Sea Connden supplied by the Plaintiff from January 2012 to April 2012 falls under a non-permanent reduction of the price for the goods, and thus, the Defendant cannot pay the price for the goods supplied to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the facts that there was a defect, such as abnormal reduction of the number of stable internal lamps, produced by using the previous sea container Denn which the Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant, are not disputed between the parties, but there is no particular evidence to acknowledge that the defect in the reduction of the number was caused by the defect in the previous sea container Den supplied by the Plaintiff. Rather, when examining the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraiser B’s appraisal, the number of stable internal lamps produced by the Defendant is the name of the defendant.